“Fighting Them Over There”
July 5th, 2007 by WaS
I just came across a news story on Yahoo about the latest Al Qaeda video that was released. It made me think harder about something a certain liberal uncle of mine (ahem!) was asking me the other day: Do I think that it’s true that we’re “fighting them over there (Iraq) to avoid fighting them over here”? I wasn’t sure about my answer until reading this news story, and then some things became clear to me.
I don’t believe that the statement “fighting them over there to prevent fighting them over here” should be taken literally. In other words, I don’t believe that the war in Iraq will prevent terrorist attacks here. I think in the short term it has nothing to do with it. Let me take a step back and explain why this article triggered this thought process.
I didn’t have time to listen to al-Zawahri’s video - especially consdiering it’s 1.5 hours long! But if I trust what the article is summarizing for me, al-Zawahri is talking about how important winning in Iraq is to their group and their cause. They realize this and we realize it as well. Here’s some quotes from the article:
A new video by al-Qaida’s deputy leader Thursday left no doubt about what the terror network claims is at stake in Iraq — describing it as a centerpiece of its anti-American fight and insisting the Iraqi insurgency is under its direct leadership.
In the unusually long video — at just over an hour and a half — al-Zawahri depicted the Islamic State of Iraq as a vanguard for fighting off the U.S. military and eventually establishing a “caliphate” of Islamic rule across the region.
If we pull our troops out and lose there, it will be a devastating pyschological, idealogical, and strategic blow for our country. If we win, it would be exactly the oppisite. A huge victory for the West, and for democracy and a giant win in the “war on terror” - no wait, “the war on Islamic fundamentalism”. So, the question is, who is responsible for making Iraq such an important chess piece? As our liberal friends claim, “there was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before we went in!! Only nice children flying kites like Michael Moore told me!”. And they are exactly right - because WE are the ones who chose this battlefield! We are the ones that made Iraq important, and we are the ones setting the terms of this war.
I believe that after 9/11 war was inevitable. If I’ve learned anything from watching History Channel documentaries, one of the key strategies in war is picking your battlefield, and being able to set the terms of battle and what constitutes victory or loss. This is exactly what we did by going into Iraq.
This to me is what “fighting them over there” means. The purpose isn’t to prevent attacks in the short term on our soil. There are much larger things at stake here. It’s clear that the Islamic fundamentalists we’re fighting realize how important winning Iraq is. I’m just wondering when people here will start to realize the same thing.
I AGRRE WINNING IN IRAQ IS IMPORTANT TO AL-Q.I STILL DONT KNOW WHAT U MEAN IF WE STAY AND WIN. WHATS WIN-MOST OF THE VIOLENCE NOW IN IRAQ IS DUE TO A CIVIL WAR. AS FAR AS PICKING OUR BATTLEFIELD. AL-Q WAS IN AFGHANISTAN, NOT IRAQ.SO WHY DID WE GO INTO IRAQ-NOT BECAUSE OF AL-Q. WHEN WE WENT INTO IRAQ WE DIDNT ANTICIPATE WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.YOURE TWISTING THE FACTS TO FIT THE STORY. WE SCREWED UP SO MUCH AND GAVE AL-Q A CHANCE TO FIGHT US THERE. WE DIDNT PICK THE BATTLEFIELD-THEY DID. WE’E”RE NOT SETTING THE TERMSOF THIS WAR-THEY ARE. WE CANT WIN-WE CAN ONLY STAY AND NOT LOSE- I REPEAT WE CANT WIN-WE CAN ONLY STAY AND NOT LOSE. NOW I’M SURE YOU’LL DEFINE WINNING IN IRAQ IN SOME WATERED DOWN VERSION(TO FIT THE SITUATION)WINNING IN IRAQ WAS DEFINED DIFFERENTLY IN THE BEGINNING OF THE WAR THAN IT IS NOW. WE WILL BE PULLING TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ ANYWAY-YOU’LL CALL IT SOMETHING WITH A SPIN AND I’LL CALL IT WITH A DIFFERENT SPIN-BUT IT WILL HAPPEN AND IT WILL HAPPEN SOON-AMEN -LET THE SOLDIERS LIVE
You’re right we didn’t go into iraq to fight Al Qaeda - we went in to change the strategic dynamic of the region and that’s what will happen when we leave. Hopefully the dynamic will shift to our favor.
Yes, we also went into Afganistan but it did not have the same effect. That country doesn’t have the same strategic importance as Iraq - geographic location and natioal resources (OIL).
Winning to me means leaving the country in a stable secure state - preferably a democracy friendly to the U.S. - the same criteria as always. I won’t say that its going as planned. I think we anticipated posssible gureilla warfare but not Muslim vs Muslim. They’re so desperate that they target their own civilians to stoke a civil war in hope we will just give up - what it seems you want to do. Its near impossible to prevent random suicide attacks so what we are facing is definately a tough situation. I don’t know myself that it can be done. I won’t try to say everything is going according to plan - but I did always say that my reasons for supporting the war were based more on strategy than WMDs (although I did believe he had them).
The only part of your comment relevant to my point is the first line where you wrote “I AGRRE WINNING IN IRAQ IS IMPORTANT TO AL-Q.” That should be enough to make it important to us.
I hope that you can get your caps lock fixed soon!
How come politicians and people on the left are always screaming “bring the troops home,” but no one ever asks the troops what they think. If you ever do any extensive reading on the numerous MilBlogs out there, you will see that the troops by far want to continue this mission until we win ,however that may be defined. These are the guys who are actually there, putting their lives on the lines. They understand the strategic importance of not quitting until we’re done, and so should we.
Also see: http://fightin6thmarines.vox.com/library/post/thats-what-were-here-for.html
lets say we make al-q leave today so theres not a single one left in iraq. theres still violence not involving al-q.did we win? will they quit. probably more chance that they would come here after us here. i think theres more harm to us by staying there. they win if we stay there and they win if we leave-we are in a lose lose situation. they do not target their own civilians so we give up .they are targeted because they hate each other .if we left they would still target each other. as far as asking the troops-there are plenty of generals(they are considered troops)that fought there and say the complete opposite what your saying. the srategic dynamic of the region is changing-for the worse-we encouraged the palestinians to go for democracy-they did-they picked hamas-we’ve emboldened iran. if we win in iraq al-q will still be around. doesnt change a thing.if we left iraq-the iraqis would get rid of al-q. the politicians on the left are saying come home but you didnt mentionthe politicians on the right that are starting to.by staying there we are increasing the ranks of al-q, not decreasing. we will be coming home soon-call it what you may-there will be troop reductions. al-q will be around for a long time-no matter whaT HAPPENS IN IRAQ. WE ARE JUST WASTING OUR TIME ,MONEY AND LIVES THERE TO ACCOMPLISH NOTHING.
Didn’t the cold war go on for 30+ years? Do you have a better idea of how to defeat Al-Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism? We have to be prepared for the long haul. This is not a 28 minute TV show where everything gets wrapped up nice and neat at the end of the episode.
There is no comparison to this war and the cold war.
The cold war was as you said COLD. Plus we had Allies ie NATO.
This war wan’t about changing dynamics…only to steal the regions oil and make Cheny Bush et al richer than they already are. Both of you are among the shrinking minority that are for continuing this immoral war. You’d feel different if there was ever a chance that you;d have to go over there.
Please continue to listen to Air America. I think you’re their only remaining listener and they need your support.
It would also be nice if you addressed my original points. If Al-Q sees this as the defining front in our battle with them, who are you to disagree? Oh yeah - Al-Q must secretly be working with Bush and Cheney to help them get rich. And they’re all sharing the profits! It’s all a ruse!
From another of your Uncles, I have to respectfully, but strenuously, disagree with your position on the Iraq war.
Putting aside the fact that most experts now agree that this war was ill conceived, poorly run, and marketed by the Bush administration under false pretenses, I agree with you that the “real” reason we went in there was to change the strategic dynamic in the region.
However, I never believed from the beginning that it was possible to implement democratic institutions in a place like Iraq and I was against the war from the start. My dear nephew, in our early arguments about the war, I remember you saying, “Yes, but wouldn’t it be great if we truly were able to bring a moderate and democratic influence into the region?” Well, yes, of course it would. And I conceded at the time that only history will reveal whether the decision to go to war was a wise one.
Well in my humble opinion, history is speaking to us loudly and clearly! Over four years later we’ve lost over 3,600 of our young kids, and over 25,000 have been seriously wounded… 25,000 young kids who have been maimed and crippled and whose lives will never be the same. This doesn’t even count the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed and wounded, all with no end in sight. In financial terms, the war has already cost American taxpayers over $400 billion with estimates now saying that the total will exceed $1 trillion.
And what do we have to show after four years for that human and monetary cost? An Iraq that is less stable than it was when we started. An Al Quaida presence that wasn’t there before we went to war. An endless stream of suicide bombers who are willing to blow up innocent civilians, including women and children. And, a country full of people who, to a large extent, continue to resent our presence, and who are unwilling/unable to help themselves.
It is time for us to cut our losses now and get out of Iraq. Will our pullout result in chaos there? Most probably! But who can deny that there is utter chaos now! Will we have egg on our faces? Of course, but I’d much rather have egg on our faces than blood for a hopeless cause. It is a pipe dream to believe that we will “win” in Iraq. This Administration grossly miscalculated and needs to correct its mistake; NOT wait for the next administration to clean up its mess.
I’m not saying that we become complacent about the terror threat. No one in their right mind would believe that the terror threat is not real or that our country is not at risk. But, let’s pour those billions of dollars into finding alternative ways of fighting the terror threat instead of this black hole we’re in. In the Viet Nam conflict, we heard cries that if we leave Viet Nam the world will fall to communism, etc. etc. Well, we didn’t prevail in that war either and somehow the world didn’t come to an end. The world won’t end if Iraq doesn’t become the country we want it to be either.
And by the way, although we may have picked the battlefield, do you truly believe that we control it? Yes, we can point to a few successes, but the plain fact remains—we plug one hole, and ten others spring up in other parts of the country. We couldn’t impose a “surge” large enough to control the battlefield in Iraq. That is the plain and sad truth.
For those who say that we should ask the soldiers whether we should continue the fight– I must be reading different articles. I keep reading article after article about current and former soldiers who served in Iraq (including high level officers) who say the “price” we’re paying in Iraq simply is not worth the reward. In fact, a petition with almost 2000 signatures was just sent to Congress to that effect. The majority of those signatures were from OUR soldiers fighting in the war. And anyone who knows the military, knows that it is not “safe” for soldiers to speak out against the war. That’s not to say there aren’t some who believe in the cause. But let’s not pretend that most of our soldiers WANT to be there. That may have been true at the beginning. But not any more!
I could go on and on, but this is already longer than I had anticipated. Better to dialogue in person, but NOT this weekend!
SDS - good analysis and I agree with much of what you wrote. I’m not trying to say things are looking good, or that our current course is correct. I’m also not making any excuses for mistakes that were made. What I do know, and this was my original point, is that we clearly have an enemy in the “war on terror”. And that enemy has publicly stated numerous times that they consider Iraq to be the central battlefield for them in this war. To leave now is to concede an enormous victory to them that I believe would have grave consequences for us in the world and possibly result in many more than deaths down the road. This is the crux of my posting and everyone who has commented has not addressed this. If our enemy says the fight is in Iraq, why do you disagree? And since we’re theorizing here, you say to pour our money into finding alternative ways of fighting these extremists? Do you have any suggestions for how to do this?
I don’t have a good solution of what to do now, but I do know that just leaving is not the right answer. I’m not happy with how things are going but the two things that piss me off are a) people who only criticize the current situation and offer no viable alternatives, and b) people who are looking, and have been looking from day one for ways to undermine our effort for political ends and to make our president look bad. To me, the latter category are the worst because they have been subconciously in effect rooting for our defeat from the beginning. SDS - I don’t believe you fall into (b) but I’m suspicous that some other people that posted here are at least partially in that category - even though they may not even realize it!
And to my 3 fine liberal uncles, I much rather discuss these things in writing here than in person - where things easily get heated. This is one of the reasons I started this blog to begin with. Thanks for participating.
And one more thing - I don’t think you can compare the “war on terror” to Vietnam. The stakes are much higher here. In the cold war and vietnam we were fighting an enemy that had something to lose. We were fighting actual states and the fear of mutual destruction is what kept our sides from crossing the brink. In this war we are dealing with two deadly elements. 1 is weapons of mass destruction. I don’t need to explain what I mean but the threat of a single person or group of people to inflict mass casualties on an unimaginable scale is worrisome to say the least. The second element is that this enemy is suicidal and has no problem taking down their own in order to kill as many infidels as possible. I think we all agree that we need to eliminate this threat. We just have different approaches. Iraq was my original approach but sadly I have doubts now that it will ever work. I’m still waiting to hear an approach from any of you guys.
Wayne had asked me to check out the action on this thread since I reliably engage in any political argument - no matter the subject. The same political fault line exists in my family as it exists in yours, i.e. my parents are instinctually liberal and think every Republican is the devil and I am for all intents and purposes more of a Republican than a Democrat after realizing that Republicans love our country as much as Democrats but just have a different point of view.
Unfortunately both parties make many of their decisions based on politics and that is why the Congressional approval rating is below 20% and the President’s is hovering in the lower 30’s.
The sad part is that this war is no different than social security, health care, stem cell research and the litany of other issues that can’t get resolved pragmatically because the ultra liberal and conservative base have hijacked the issues.
I supported the war even before the President mentioned it in any of his speeches. I’ve been a foreign policy hawk ever since President Clinton’s middle east peace effort failed (which I firmly supported at the time but now think was a bit naive). And I firmly support a continued presence in Iraq for no other reason than I think its the smartest thing to do given our current circumstances. If you look at the day to day its messy without a question, but I never thought this war’s results should be judged for for what it looks like today. I always thought this war should be judged based on where we stand 15 - 20 - 50 years down the road and my thoughts haven’t changed. Dont let this be mistaken for support in the way its been run and the current strategy at hand, but I support the overall mission and its goals.
Sure the loss of innocent life is terrible, but think of how many lives were lost fighting slavery in the civil war….literally millions. I don’t think anyone would dispute it was a cause not worth fighting and it has continued paying dividends for decades and arguably centuries later. Lives and treasure need to be put on the line in order to fight for a better way of life.
I believed and still believe that Iraq is the center of a new fight against tyranny and Islamofacism. I think this fight could have been had somewhere else, i.e. I would have supported a war against Syria or a war against Iran. They all have the same thing in common: a nasty dictator who imposes his will on his people, hates the US, and as a result continues to foment chaos throughout the middle east and the world. The actual battleground didn’t matter to me as long as it could change the dynamic in the region.
The reason Iraq was picked was because it was the lowest hanging fruit and easiest to gain international support which it did (on paper) when the UN security council passed a resolution authorizing force. I can write a whole book on why that resolution was passed on paper and not supported when those same countries had to actually enforce it.
In short, I ask this same group how they can be so sure that this is the wrong course of action and not the right one? Isn’t it possible that if Iraq climbs out of the uncertainty and chaos that it could truly change the entire region and the world? Isn’t it possible that George Bush (the man most of you hate) is right and you are wrong?
There are plently of times in history when the majority have been wrong and the minority have been right. Isn’t it possible that this is one of them?
You seem to forget that we created the situation in Iraq. OUr dear president makes himself look bad, not his critics. He chose to invade an innocent country that had nothing to do with any terror plots. NOt that Saddam was a saint.
Afganistan is where we should have continued to concentrate on but he took all of the resources to invade another country. Now the taliban is stronger than ever, Bin laden is holed up somewhere in Western Pakistan, a country that Bush has allied with,and Musharaf has given a safe haven to. A country that has nuclear weapons.
Al qaeda is just a small part of the problem in Iraq, Extremists from Saudi Arabia, Jordan are the ones causing more of the problems over there for us. I believe our presense is contributing to recruitment for
Al qaeda. Instead of eying Afganistan,(the resurgence of the taliban)and pressuring Pakistan, they are gearing up to attack Iran, and priming the public just like before Iraq to prepare for this folly.
I also disagree with you where you say we had more to loose during the cold war or vietnam. You didn’t live during those times when we had duck and cover excercises in grade school because we never knew when an atomic bomb was coming from
Russia. Or the Cuba Missile crisis, when we were moments away from annihilation.
My approach would be to get the hell out of Iraq and concentrate our resources, in Pakistan, Afganistan, North Africa, Europe, etc to find terror cells and destroy them. We also have to stop relying on the middle east for our energy. I am sure that alternative fuels can be found then we can stop sucking up to the Saudis and other places we get oil from.
I resent you comment about “…..looking from day one for ways to undermine our effort for political ends and to make our president look bad…..”
there never was a political effort from Bush, he wanted war and got a war, and still wants more war.
Wayne, I would like you to look up the term “Military Industrial Complex” and read something about it. Something Eisenhower warned the country about in his farewell speech in 1961
It looks like we will never see eye to eye with this issue.
You still haven’t addressed my main point. Maybe my posts are too long and confusing you. So I’ll simplify it right now. Here’s the logic:
1) We are in a long term war with a loosely organized fundamentalist Islamist group called Al Qaeda.
*I think we agree on this point.*
2) This group has repeatedly said publicly that they consider Iraq to be the central front and battlfield in this war.
*I haven’t heard you contest this so I’ll assume we agree here too.*
3) Your recomendation to the president is to retreat from this battlefield.
*This is where I’m lost. How will this help us in the long term war we’re fighting? Have you seriously considered and thought through the consequences of this action? I would like to know your thought process here.*
(And I’m not saying the threat wasn’t real in the cold war. I’m saying the nature of the enemy was that they could be reasoned with and stood as much to lose as we did. Do you think for a second that if Al-Q had a nuclear weapon, they would hesitate for even a second to use it immediately?)
Wayne, based on your last couple of posts, I’m now a bit confused on your position. I was thinking that maybe we’re on the same track, but I’m not sure.
On the one hand, I hear you saying the following:
“I’m not trying to say things are looking good, or that our current course is correct.” “I’m not happy with how things are going….” “Iraq was my original approach but sadly I have doubts now that it will ever work.”
On the other hand, I hear you saying that you know that “just leaving is not the right answer.”
So are you arguing that you agree the current strategy is not working, but we should continue to spill American blood and continue to pour billions of dollars into a losing strategy… because we don’t yet have a solution or an alternative?
If that’s your argument, I would continue to take serious issue with it. You asked if “I” can offer up any alternatives. No, like you, I can’t offer a specific solution that I know will work. If any of us had that, I doubt we would be sitting at our computers writing on your blog. But here’s what I DO know and/or believe strongly.
1. That our current strategy is not working and that most military experts have conceded that. That continuing to spill the blood of our children simply to “save face” is a moral outrage. Yes, it would hand an “embarrassing victory” to our enemies, but that is NOT justification for continuing a losing strategy?
2. We’re a democratic country that has elected our representatives to bring our country’s great resources to bear to FIND alternative solutions. Our country has some of the greatest minds in the world. We have to change focus and bring those minds together to look for solutions. That can NEVER happen while our military strength and our country’s other resources are so heavily mired down in a hopeless war.
3. Though I’m not smart enough or have the military or strategic intelligence background to offer up solutions, I simply can’t believe that those billions that we’ve spent and are continuing to spend on the Iraq war, can’t be put to better use to build our homeland defenses and to bolster our intelligence services around the world to better fight the terror threat. It is mind boggling to think what those billions could have bought for us in that regard.
Also, I can’t buy your argument that because Al Quaida has openly declared that Iraq is their battleground for their fight against the West… that who are we to argue with it. First, Al Quaida is there BECAUSE we invaded Iraq. I can show you many Intelligence experts’ analyses that demonstrate how our actions in Iraq are actually fueling the terrorist cause, including several articles today in the Washington Post. For example, Daniel Benjamin who has written several books on International Terrorism is quoted as saying, “We’re creating terrorists in Iraq, we are creating terrorists outside of Iraq who are inspired by what’s going on in Iraq. . . . The longer we stay, the more terrorists we create.”
I’m not saying that our actions invented the terrorists. What I AM saying is that if it wasn’t Iraq, Al Quaida would be training and recruiting elsewhere. In fact, the recent Intelligence Reports suggests that the Pakastan/Afghanistan border has become their main stronghold. In other words, they’ll always be somewhere! Again, we have to find more effective means of fighting the threat and bolstering our country’s defenses. Our fight in Iraq certainly isn’t doing it. It is a losing cause and we need to refocus our country’s efforts in the fight.
Regarding your comment about Viet Nam– I wasn’t suggesting that the issues or the threat was the same. I WAS suggesting that the administration is continuing to engage in fear-mongering rhetoric to justify staying in Iraq, similar to what we heard during the Viet Nam war. There is wide disagreement regarding the scenarios that could play out if we left Iraq. Agreed… none of them are pretty, AND no one knows for sure what will happen. It is my personal belief as well as the belief of other experts that I’ve read, that although there are no “good” scenarios, none would be apocalyptic, just as it wasn’t apocalyptic when we withdrew from Viet Nam.
Israel suffered a terrible embarrassment in the hands of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Did the world come to an end? While it certainly has engendered a lot of internal political discord in the country, I would put money on the fact that Israel is learning from its military and strategic errors and will come out stronger for it. I believe that we need to do the same… to once and for all learn from our terrible mistake in Iraq… and come out stronger and better equipped to fight the terror threat.
Well, let me throw the question back to BSC. Isn’t it just possible that George Bush is wrong and that we are right — that this is one of those times that the majority is correct?
What I love about this country and what I believe is worth spilling blood for is the right for you and I to disagree and to have a healthy debate about what we believe is right or wrong.
I don’t hate all Republicans. Nor do I feel that they are the devil. What I DO hate though with every fabric of my being is how this administration has attempted to thwart that debate… to compromise the very democratic principles that we’re supposedly fighting for around the world… and to subvert our Constitution in a way that is unprecedented in our history.
Our democracy is not perfect. It is sometimes slow and gets bogged down to the point where issues don’t get resolved. But I still believe it is the best system (at least for us!). You are correct that the public is fed up as reflected in the pitiful approval ratings for the President and Congress. But I DON’T believe the answer is a monarchy or dictatorship, which this Administration has attempted to impose on the country through its actions? No. The answer is for people to become fed up enough to change its government, which I guarantee will happen in this and future elections.
This war is VERY different than social security, health care, stem cell research, etc. Whether the country has yet to solve those issues or not, at least there has been open healthy debate… and I believe that we WILL make progress in the years to come. Contrast that with an administration that has been secretive, manipulated intelligence, lied to the public, and used its power to try to silence its critics and impose its own world view. No. Those aren’t my democratic ideals. THAT’S what I hate about this President and many members of his administration
I’ll stop there because as with Wayne’s posts, I need clarification about your position on the war. You say, “Don’t let this be mistaken for support in the way its [the war] been run and the current strategy…” You also say, “The actual battleground didn’t matter to me as long as it could change the dynamic in the region.” Are you suggesting that we just pour more troops into Iraq? Invade another country now, like Syria? How is our continued presence in Iraq changing the dynamic in the Region?
Just for the record, I too support our “overall mission and goals”; that is to fight terrorism. I just don’t believe that our continued presence in Iraq is doing that and I’m not willing to spill 20 - 50 more years of blood thinking/hoping that it might. I think we need to support our troops by bringing them home and diverting our attention to trying strategies that WILL work. And, to have a healthy debate about it without lies and deception.
SDS I agree with a lot of what you said, especially regarding democracy and spirited debate. I too think George Bush (and by extension me) could be wrong, I just wish most Democrats could admit that they too could be wrong. In particular the Democrats who hated George Bush to the bone before his first day of office! There are literally people still pissed off about the 2000 election! Those same people are trying to get into a serious policy debate, but it undermines their argument and doesn’t make them appear serious about the issues.
In terms of who is right and who will be wrong - this is not clear cut. Never was in my opinion, yet foreign policy experts who never knew a thing about Bin Laden (or Sadaam for that matter) have popped up all over the country playing Monday morning quarterback when things are not going smoothly and we don’t feel in control of the situation.
I blame a lot of where we stand today on us, the American people. Until 9-11 hardly anyone in this country understood the politics of the Middle East, let alone Afghanistan. As a result, previous administrations (including GWB until 9-11) wasn’t being proactive in trying to shape the world around us. We are paying for it now. Which is in a nutshell why I support this war.
One comment I need to address head on is your accusation that GWB and his administration was intentionally misleading the country into a war. I simply don’t believe that is true. If we got misled then the UN and 70 other senators got misled as well. I don’t believe that is the case. Nobody thought so at the time and there was no reason to believe otherwise based on Sadaam’s history.
In terms of next steps….thats a tough one. More of the same is not acceptable to me, but pulling troops out indiscrimanantly because the WMDs are not there or because people think the President misled the public into war, etc. is not a good reason in my view.
It would be great if the argument wasn’t framed as a battle between people who want to pull out versus people who want to stay in.
I think if we had a serious conversation of how to bring stability and then prosperity to the country we could complete the job. It still won’t be easy, it will cost a lot more money, and people will die. But in the end I think it could be a catalyst for something really big. In order to change the dynamic we need to finish this job. If we don’t, we will just be back there in a matter of years cleaning up an even more difficult situation.
BSC—Thanks for your thoughtful responses. I think there is some common ground in our thinking, though I can see we still have some basic philosophical differences.
Let me respond to some points. With regard to one admitting that he or she might be wrong on a position– to be honest, I’m not sure what the relevance of that is. Regardless of who the President is, I can’t imagine any leader standing up and saying “We need to go to war (or not go to war) for x, y, and z reasons…. but I admit I might be wrong.”
The point is that we argue our convictions based upon our belief system. When we argue political issues, hopefully that belief system is based at least partially on some evidence or our interpretation of the evidence.
If you were to privately ask most Democrats OR Republicans if there is a “possibility” they could be wrong on the predicted outcome of their proposed war strategy, I would venture that most would admit… “Yes, there is a ‘possibility’ I could be wrong. There aren’t many people who are so arrogant as to suggest that they can predict the future with absolute certainty.
Nevertheless, that doesn’t require that one change his/her convictions and not argue them strongly. I believe VERY strongly that we are on the wrong course in Iraq and will continue to argue for withdrawal and for seeking other alternatives. But yes, I too, admit, that there is an ever slight possibility that these warring factions in Iraq will kiss and make up. I’m just not willing to pay the price for what I believe is a very slight possibility. The cost is WAY too high!
In addition, I will strongly defend my right to criticize and voice my opinion, AND advocate the removal of any politician who seeks to silence me or to take that right away from me, as I believe the Bush Administration has done.
You and I will have to agree to disagree on the intent of this administration in bringing this country to war. I will concede that perhaps there were those in the administration who truly believed that Sadaam possessed WMD’s based on his history and/or some evidence. But, I will go to my death bed believing that they intentionally manipulated and/or covered up other intelligence that created some doubt and that could have and should have generated the kind of debate that is absolutely necessary in a democracy before we send our kids to war. Yes, they convinced the U.N. and 70 senators but, again, I believe, the administration intentionally did not present ALL the facts and “sold” this war under false pretenses.
I believe you and I may have basic philosophical differences in our approach to “shaping the world” as well. You may very well be right that we haven’t done enough to proactively shape the Middle East as an example. But I happen to believe that we don’t shape the world by throwing around our military muscle and engaging in preemptive destruction of countries. In recent history, the superior military muscle of Russia in Afghanistan didn’t work; it didn’t work for us in Viet Nam; it didn’t work for Israel in Lebanon; and it CERTAINLY has worked for us is Iraq. In fact, we’ve done so much to shape the world with our arrogance, that we’ve lost moral leadership, credibility, and lost world respect and status. In my humble opinion, we better start putting some people in office who have the leadership and vision to start shaping the world in more effective ways! Otherwise, we deserve what we get.
SDS - two things - 1 - How have you been silenced or had rights taken away? And 2nd - I don’t think that the possibility of being wrong means that suddenly everyone will kiss and make up. I think its weighing the costs of leaving verses the costs of staying. In all of these debates about pulling out, nobody is discussing what the actual costs (not financial) will be if we leave.
And also, you said “I’m not smart enough or have the military or strategic intelligence background to offer up solutions…”
But suggesting we pull out IS offering a solution too and the majority consensus among military generals and experts is that the cost of pulling out is extremely high. So how can congress, or you suggest otherewise? Also where would you send all these troops? Going to the tribal areas of Pakistan/Afghanistan is not an option because the government won’t allow it. Where should they go? **And I reiteriate: Our enemy has claimed the central front of the war is in Iraq. Unless we’re surrendering to Al-Q, why should we leave???? ***
You wrote:
“Also, I can’t buy your argument that because Al Quaida has openly declared that Iraq is their battleground for their fight against the West… that who are we to argue with it. First, Al Quaida is there BECAUSE we invaded Iraq.”
This is exactly the original point of my post. They’re there because we invaded Iraq. We drew them there. That’s where the “fighting them over there” mentality comes in. You said that if not for Iraq, they’d be somewhere else. I’m hoping that that somewhere else isn’t HERE. And why IRaq? this is where BSC’s lowest hanging fruit comes into play. Also, if we are succesful there, I believe in the long run it will dry up recruiting and support for these groups. That’s the whole idea. recently there have been a lot of stories coming out about Sunni tribal leaders turning on Al-Q and siding with the Americans and Iraq government. I think there is still a chance it could turn around, and perhaps yes, the answer may be MORE troops.
Bottom line though, if you’re going to push so hard for pulling out I think you need to have some suggestions on what to do once that is done - or at least this is more meaningful. Everyone agrees its not going well and its easy to say just leave. But without a follow through plan, its meaningless. Its fine for you to do it when talking about theory, but this is the same thing the democrats who are voting for this bill are doing. In fact its what they did before the war too. Criticizing and bashing with no alternative ideas.
Wayne, why do persist in labeling people who have an opposite view or who criticize our government policies as “bashers?” That is tantamount to this administration using its media power to label anyone who disagrees with them as “unpatriotic.” I resent the administration for that and can’t help but ask myself, who are the ones being inflexible and intransigent.
To your first question, my government has not done anything “directly” to silence my views. But I can tell you just as sure as the sun rises in the morning, that it has INDIRECTLY! Any time our government takes steps to infringe on ANYone’s rights, it affects you and me, big time! And we better wake up to that. Just to name a few, let me point to the Valerie Plume affair which was a direct attempt by the administration to silence a critic. How about the administration authorizing the NSA to conduct electronic surveillance of our citizens outside of the law (not to mention administration officials visiting our former Attorney General while he was sick in a hospital bed in attempts to thwart Justice objections to illegal surveillance.) What about the gross violations of our rights by the FBI regarding their illegal issuance of National Security Letters, with no oversight whatsoever over the authority that was granted to them. What about the administration’s total disregard for the Geneva Convention. And I wonder what your view would be if YOU were the German citizen who was shipped off to Afghanistan for interrogation and torture and then (Woops!) later released without charges based on some government’s confusion about his name.
Wayne, I could write a paper on steps that this administration has taken to consolidate its power in the hands of the executive branch and to chip away at our civil liberties. Frankly, I can’t believe that you are not as alarmed and outraged as any of us, and that you can’t see how that affects you. The government doesn’t have to be tapping MY personal phone right now for it to be a concern to me.
Your second point— my “kiss and make up” statement was a facetious one to make a point. Obviously I don’t believe that admitting the possibility of a mistake will cause the Iraqis to make nice with each other. I agree with you wholeheartedly that we need to be weighing the costs of leaving vs. staying. Why do you say that no one is doing that? I have heard and read countless military officials (mostly former, by the way) come out and say that the cost is not worth the “rewards” of staying. I’ve read other expert strategists suggest the same thing. Could you point me to the survey of military generals and “other experts”, the majority of whom you claim assert that the cost of pulling out is too high? And, by the way, do you realize that the likelihood of military generals coming out against the President’s view on the war is nil to none? And if they did, they would be out on their arses? How can you point to that as evidence in support of your argument? I would much rather you point me to a majority of experts who have no political stake in expressing their views.
Your view is that we should stay. Ok. Other than generalities about our loss of credibility and that it “might” result in more loss of life, I haven’t heard any specifics from you regarding the costs of staying vs. leaving. You accuse anti-war folk of not having a plan. The evidence clearly shows that our current strategy isn’t working and I THINK you have admitted that. Yet I haven’t heard anything from you about a “plan” other than to simply stay, spill more blood and spend more money. ???????????
I forgot to make a point in my last post… I conceded in one of my posts to “some successes.” As you point out there are a few stories of Sunni tribal leaders working with us. But those are very spotty. By the way, “low-hanging fruit” means relatively easy success. It is obvious to me that that fruit turned out to be much higher on the tree than we expected. Wayne, we are VERY far apart if you truly believe that any ultimate success in Iraq will mean the drying up of terrorist support and recruitment. They have already proven to be much more resourceful than that. Have years of Israeli military victories and dominance dried up Palestinian Terror?
You’re right that there’s no easy answers and no obvious solution. The thing that gets me is that it appears that the democrats are constantly trying to undermine the president’s efforts on this war. That’s how it was from the beginning. They want to try a different strategy so the idea of the troop surge was drafted. They fought that the whole way through without offering different ideas other than just pulling out, and now they want to stop it before it’s even fully had a chance to be executed. It has barely been fully implemented and people are already declaring it a failure.
In fact, they’ve been trying to declare the war a failure from the moment we went in. At every turn the Democratic Party is doing whatever they can to dog the administration and is a constant weight around the president’s neck. I feel that this may have contributed to some of our problems because the country was so divided. Once congress voted to authorize the war, they should have stood behind the president and offered their full support and worked through any problems that arose together. The responsibility lies on the entire governments shoulders – not just the presidents. Don’t think that if everything went exactly as planned, the politicians wouldn’t be fighting over who gets the credit for the decision to go in. But when things got rough, everyone distanced themselves and started pointing fingers. At times it even seems like some politicians and pundits, were secretly rooting for failure just so they could be proven right. This is where the whole idea of dems being bashers and appearing unpatriotic stems from. I don’t necessarily agree with it but it certainly seems that way at times. And for some of the more extremist elements of the party (not necessarily politicians, but activist types) it sometimes seems they are blatantly siding with the enemy.
Congress saw the same intelligence as the president for years – even before GWB and voted for the war. The removal of Saddam was actually a policy that was formed under Clinton – not Bush. This was nothing new at all. So you know what? They voted - suck it up, accept responsibility for your vote, put political differences aside, get united behind the president and work through it. I don’t want to hear whining about being misled and manipulated. Everyone knew what was on the table for years. I’m not saying that the problems are all because of this, but I sometimes wonder if things would’ve gone differently if they all worked together on this. And part of this blame likely lies with the president as well. I’m not excusing him.
So what to do now? I say wait until September when the final report on this latest strategy is out, and listen to what the generals and military establishment have to say. I reevaluate myself then and maybe I will also support a pullout.
Well I certainly won’t argue how politics muddle the issues. I think BSC did an excellent job of expressing that. I will say, however, that Democrats do NOT have a monopoly on it and I would even venture to say that the Republicans wrote the book, especially during the recent Bush years before the Dems even won its slight majority. But, that’s the subject for a whole other blog!
Further, I agree with some of what you said about the Democrats voting for the war. There is plenty of blame to go around for them not having the courage to stand up for their convictions… not to mention the media dropping the ball… and the general public. This is not an excuse, but the fact of the matter was that the Republican machinery was so successful in branding as a “traitor” or “unpatriotic” anyone who opposed the war, the democrats were simply too skittish… too afraid to go against the tide. So they reluctantly went along as the politically expedient thing to do. Again, yes… that showed a total lack of courage.
But, I also continue to place a lot of blame squarely on the Bush Administration. I can’t speak to your comment about Congress seeing the intelligence that everyone else saw, etc. I don’t know exactly WHAT they saw or exactly WHO saw it. I do remember Bush asserting that he had briefed certain members of Congress, but again, I don’t know what was presented at that meeting. As I’ve stated previously though, there has been clear evidence so show that the Administration intentionally did not disclose certain other intelligence that cast doubt on assertions that Sadaam had WMD and the links between Sadaam and Terrorist organizations. In other words, the President picked and chose the intelligence he used to make his case for war which precluded the kind of debate that should have occurred. That is simply unconscionable in my view.
Also, I remember thinking all during that time period… when we weren’t getting support from our allies… if the President has such incontrovertible evidence, why doesn’t he just share it with our allies. Surely, that would convince them to come on board. That never seemed to happen. The excuse was always, “We can’t do that for national security reasons.” It just didn’t make sense to me. Do you remember the countries in our so called “coalition of the willing,” which the President touted so highly It’s a joke. (Lithuania, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Estonia, Uzbekistan, Philippines and the like… all the main players in world affairs.) Ok you got me… Great Britain and Italy. :>
I’ll admit, I could be uninformed about this issue as well, but what is the point about the Clinton Administration? As I remember reading about it, yes, the issue of removing Sadaam was raised and considered during the Clinton years, but it was pushed primarily by the architects of the war during THIS administration (names like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, to name a few). The fact is that Clinton never took action to invade Iraq, wanting instead unanimous UN support. So what is the point that the issue was “formed” during the Clinton years? Again, I admit I could be uninformed about the history behind this.
So agreed. The democrats screwed up by not standing up in opposition of the war at the start. Does that mean we perpetuate a terrible mistake? The administration reminds me of a gambling addict who keeps putting money in the slot machine, hoping against hope for that one big hit. Just a little more time… a few more troops… a little more time… a few more troops…. and on and on and on. And now I think I read in your last post that you would support even more troops at a time when almost EVERYONE (including the generals) has agreed that a military solution is not going to work in Iraq without a political solution as well.
Ok. If you’ll wait til September before passing judgment, I will too. I read today that the Sunni’s decided to end their boycott of Parliament and come back to the table. (I wouldn’t be a bit surprised, by the way, if that wasn’t caused by the pressure they’re seeing for US troop withdrawals.) Anyway, maybe that will be a major step forward that will demonstrate progress– “progress” being defined as the Iraqis taking responsibility for resolving their own issues which will permit eventual withdrawal of US troops. Then perhaps we can refocus our efforts on really fighting the war on terror instead of being in the middle of a civil war.
guys,
we are leaving Iraq. The conversation should be switching at some point to how and what to do next. The American people are speaking and they dont like this “war” or babysitting of civil war in Iraq and its coming to a close.
The time is coming for the early supporters of the war to draft their apologies and start hoping for a miraculous Trumanesque reversal in historical perspective on George Bush and his disasterous reign (in far more ways than this war, particuarly on the backward trend of nearly every scientific and social issue).
I firmly believe that villification will take on new meaning when bush is 75, rocking in his chair and the country looks back on 8 wasted years.
His supporters too should be stacking their notecards full of deflections and rationalizations because the tidal wave of contempt is on the horizon.
Wait, whats that speck?
Its me, riding a longboard on the crest of the wave, cruising with mad skill and comfort, coming all the way from 2000, when I knew this idiot George Bush was going to flush our great country down the toilet…
A good next step would be to start elbowing Musharraf and getting the “real” al qaeda, not al qaeda in mesopotamia, the front group cited furtively by bush as the “people who got us in 2001″.
Perhaps defeating al qaeda should include FIGHTING AL QAEDA!?!
Just a suggestion.
But in the meantime, Ill be hanging 10.